|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Central Government - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 361 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2020 (3) TMI 773
Duty Drawback - application for fixation of the brand rate rejected - Rule 7(1) of the Drawback Rules - HELD THAT:- Rule 7 clearly stipulates that in case the exporter has already availed All Industries Rate (AIR) irrespective of the fact whether it is only in respect of the customs portion or the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax portion together no application under Rule 7 for the fixation of brand rate can be filed. Moreover, the para 7 of the above said notification quoted by the applicant only relates to the All Industries rates of drawback and has nothing to do with the fixation of brand rate under Rule 7 of the Drawback Rules. These are two independent provisions and cannot be linked to claim benefit which is not due. The scope of Notes and Condition No. 7 (supra) is thus limited to granting of Customs portion of drawback e....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 669
Classification of imported goods - Sputtering Targets - whether classified under Central Excise Tariff Heading 8543 or under 7115? - Duty Drawback - HELD THAT:- Section Notes and Chapter Notes of Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 are in line with the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Harmonized System of Nomenclature. Therefore a combined reading of Rule 3(a) of HSN and Chapter Note 1(b) of Chapter 71 of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act (CTH), 1975 makes it clear that the impugned items merit classification under Chapter 71 - Although a notification cannot decide the classification of an item it is observed that silver sputtering target have been mentioned under Chapter 71 under Notification No. 8/2003-Customs, dated 13-1-2003 by C.B.I. & C. Apex Court in PANKAJ JAIN AGENCIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1994 (7) TMI 89 -....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 668
Smuggling - Gold Biscuits - Baggage Rules - absolute confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is evident that applicant is the bona fide owner of impugned goods and the applicant had requested the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the re-export of impugned goods. Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that the detained imported goods can be re-exported at the request of the passenger where he/she is returning from India to a foreign country. Thus, apart from declaration of the imported goods at the time of arrival of passenger, return of the passenger to the foreign country after a short visit to India as a tourist or otherwise is a crucial condition for re-export of such goods. The applicant has contended that he was not given an opportunity to declare the gold items in writing at the time of his arrival at Kolkat....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 667
Smuggling - Silver items - Baggage Rules - redemption of confiscated goods - HELD THAT:- Silver in any other form other than ornaments does not come within the ambit of bona fide baggage as per the Baggage Rules, 2016. The applicant has brought 8 pieces of silver bowls of foreign origin. This is an admitted fact by the applicant in his voluntary statement tendered under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 that he owns a shop dealing in silver utensils and he purchased these utensils from Yangon, Myanmar. From the evidence on record it is observed that the applicant crossed the green channel without declaring the impugned articles in his possession in the Customs declaration form or in any other form to the Customs officers and thereby violated Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant has attempted to smuggle the impugned silver art....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 651
Bonafide baggage or not - Import of Drones - Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- It is found that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed that the drones and their accessories imported by the applicant do not constitute a part of bona fide baggage in terms of Section 79 of Customs Act, 1962 read with para 2.26 of Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), 2015-20 which defines the bona fide baggage which can be brought by a passenger without any authorisation by the concerned authorities. The Government holds that the benefit of free allowance of ₹ 50,000/- under the Baggage Rules has been wrongly extended by the adjudicating authority to the applicant since drones and their accessories cannot be cleared as “baggage”. The revision application filed by the applicant is rejected and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld - The Department is directed to recover the differential duty from the applicant on the said accessories.
- 2020 (3) TMI 579
Smuggling - Gold bars - concealment in the baggage - absolute confiscation - prayer for redemption and reduction in quantum of penalty - HELD THAT:- It is observed that gold in any other form other than ornaments does not come within the ambit of bona fide baggage as per the Baggage Rules, 2016. The applicant has brought gold of foreign origin in raw form/small pieces weighing 1000 grams. This is an admitted fact by the applicant in his voluntary statement tendered under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 wherein he has stated that he is the owner of the recovered gold and the same has been purchased by him on cash payment in Dubai. Prohibited goods or not - HELD THAT:- From the evidence on record it is observed that the applicant crossed the green channel without declaring the impugned articles in his possession in the Customs declaration ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 381
Penalty u/s 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order-in-Original on the basis of the fact that the OTR (Out Turn Report) alone cannot be the basis of imposition of penalty where the Surveyor’s report has confirmed that there was no short landing - HELD THAT:- Government finds that the present case is regarding imposition of penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground of short-landing determined on the basis of quantity. C.B.I. & C.’s Circular No. 46/95-Cus., dated 4-5-1995, relied on by the Respondent - The circular relied upon by the respondent is regarding levy of duty and penalty. Therefore the respondent does not get any benefit of the above circular. No explanation has been offered by the respondent as to how the weight of 2473.628 MT in the survey report can m....... + More
- 2018 (11) TMI 535
Absolute Confiscation - penalty - smuggling - gold bangle/kara - Baggage Rules - case of applicant is that the gold bangle/kara was not purchased from Bangkok, this was in his use when he left from India - Held that:- The applicant has not produced any evidence to establish that he had taken the Kara along with him from India itself and he has not been able to give a convincing reason as to why he had got the gold kara coated with silver colour if he had worn it as a religious symbol in India itself - Moreover, a steel kara is commonly used as a religious symbol and a gold kara is not generally considered as a religious symbol by the Sikhs. The Commissioner (Appeals)’s order is erroneous to the extent the gold has been confiscated absolutely as Under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, it is mandatory to give option to the owner of the ....... + More
- 2018 (11) TMI 534
Revision application - absolute confiscation of Foreign currency - the revision application has been filed mainly on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred by allowing the redemption of the absolutely confiscated foreign currency which are prohibited goods. Held that:- The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted in his order that the foreign currencies in this case had been arranged by the respondent by selling his two properties in Delhi. But this fact alone cannot attenuate the gravity of the offence committed by the respondent by not only procuring the foreign currencies from illegal resources in brazen violation of FEMA and various other laws in force but also by attempting to export the foreign currencies to a foreign country in contravention of Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) has overlooked the....... + More
- 2018 (9) TMI 1944
Reduction in the quantum of penalty - illegal import of Samsung TV - Gold bars - revision application is filed mainly on the ground that the penalty on the applicant has been wrongly upheld in Order-in-Appeal even when he did not do any act or omission in regard to illegal importation of gold - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the applicant does not deny his role with regard to illegal import of Samsung TV, but has vehemently asserted that he was not aware about the gold bars hidden in the TV Stand when it was brought by him from Thailand to India for an amount of ₹ 5,000/- to be given by the person at the Delhi Airport after delivery of the TV to him. Accordingly, the applicant has prayed that penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs which was reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) from the original penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs is too harsh and shou....... + More
- 2018 (8) TMI 1941
Duty Drawback sanctioned at reduced rates - benefit of N/N. 23/2008-Cus., dated 1-3-2008 - HELD THAT:- The revision application has been filed on 21-10-2015 against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-6-2015. Since the date of receipt of the said Order-in-Appeal by the applicant was not mentioned in the revision application, this office vide letter dated 27-10-2015 requested the applicant to provide the date of communication of the Order-in-Appeal. But its communication to the applicant was not informed even thereafter till now. Hence, there is no option but to consider the date of Order-in-Appeal as its communication date also particularly when the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) is situated in the main Custom House itself in Kolkata where the office of the applicant is also located. Thus in absence of any specific date given by applicant,....... + More
- 2018 (8) TMI 1940
Recovery of Duty Drawback - Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962 - claim rejected mainly on the ground that they had re-exported the imported goods after few days of importation, the padlocks are used by customers for years and it was not possible that 7.5 lakh locks could be re-exported by the applicant after collecting from so many customers - HELD THAT:- The re-export of the imported brass padlocks is not disputed by the Revenue authorities and the recovery of duty drawback is ordered by the original authority and upheld by the first appellate authority merely for the reason that the applicant did not produce any evidence to establish that they had not used these goods prior to re-export thereof. However, no such objection had been raised earlier by the original sanctioning authority and instead the drawback amount had been granted on being....... + More
- 2018 (8) TMI 1939
Duty Drawback - applicability of time limitation - relevant date under the provision of Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 - rejection of claim on the ground that the goods were used by the respondent for more than 18 months from the date of payment of duty of customs on importation of the goods - HELD THAT:- The admissibility of drawback in this case is not in dispute under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of re-exported goods and the department’s case in the revision application is only that drawback is not payable as the re-exported goods had been used for more than 18 months after importation of the goods. However, on meticulous examination of the Order-in-Original and the revision application it is noticed that the use of the goods has been wrongly calculated from the date of payment of customs duty which was mad....... + More
- 2018 (8) TMI 1935
Maintainability of revision application - revision application filed after 7 months and 22 days from the receipts of the Order-in-Appeal - time limitation - request of the respondent for amendment of FOB value in Shipping bill for bank purpose only is allowed - drawback not claimed - HELD THAT:- The revision application has been filed after 7 months and 22 days from the receipts of the Order-in-Appeal. But despite of delayed filing of revision application, no application for condonation of delay was filed along with the application and it was presented after long gap on 6-7-2015 on the ground that the revision application could not be filed on time due to administrative reasons. Further the said application is filed for condonation of delay of 20 days only even when the actual delay is 144 days. Even the nature of administrative reasons w....... + More
- 2018 (8) TMI 1934
Recovery of Duty Drawback - Commissioner (Appeals) restricted the recovery of drawback relating to the packaging materials only and allowed drawback on other inputs - the revision application has been filed by the applicant mainly on the ground that the All Industry Rates are average rates and the department cannot check duty paid character of inputs; that the inputs were not procured under Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002; that the inputs were procured from unregistered SSI units against ‘H’ form; that no method/authority is prescribed for reduction of all industry rates of drawback under the Drawback Rules, 1995 and the recovery of drawback can be effected within a reasonable period only. HELD THAT:- The Government has examined the matter and found force in the argument of the applicant that the All Industry Rates of....... + More
- 2018 (8) TMI 1933
Recovery of Duty Drawback - Commissioner (Appeals) restricted the recovery of drawback relating to the packaging materials only and allowed drawback on other inputs - the revision application has been filed by the applicant mainly on the ground that the All Industry Rates are average rates and the department cannot check duty paid character of inputs; that the inputs were not procured under Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002; that the inputs were procured from unregistered SSI units against ‘H’ form; that no method/authority is prescribed for reduction of all industry rates of drawback under the Drawback Rules, 1995 and the recovery of drawback can be effected within a reasonable period only. HELD THAT:- The Government has examined the matter and found force in the argument of the applicant that the All Industry Rates of....... + More
- 2018 (8) TMI 1932
Smuggling - Gold bars - prohibited goods or not - revision application is filed mainly on the grounds that he had brought the gold bars for self use only, gold is not prohibited goods - HELD THAT:- From the revision application it is evident that the applicant does not dispute the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order regarding confiscation of the goods which were brought by him illegally from Dubai in violation of Customs Act and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and his request is limited to a point that the confiscated gold may be released on payment of redemption fine and reasonable penalty. Government has examined the matter and it is found that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the applicant had violated Section 77 of Customs Act, 1962 by not declaring gold bars to the Customs authorities on his arriv....... + More
- 2018 (7) TMI 2097
Condonation of delay in filing Departmental appeal - smuggling - illegal import - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the Order-in-Original was passed on 28-3-2014, it was reviewed on 3-7-2014, the Review Order was communicated to the Adjudicating Authority on 4-7-2014 and the appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was filed on 11-8-2014. Whereas as per Section 129D(3) and (4) the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) should have been filed within one month of the receipt of the Review Order which was received on 4-7-2014. But in this case the appeal was filed acceptably after delay of 7 days and the same is rejected as time-barred by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that he does not have any power to condone any delay under Section 129D of the Customs Act. For department....... + More
- 2018 (4) TMI 1658
Redemption of confiscated goods - Gold - revision application is filed mainly on the grounds that the applicant had brought the gold for self use only from Dubai, gold was not concealed, it was declared at the red channel, his actions/omissions are not covered under Sections 111(d), (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, therefore, the gold has been wrongly confiscated - Held that:- The applicant’s request for re-export of the confiscated gold is also not maintainable as this request was not placed before the Commissioner (Appeals) as per order-in-appeal and even in the revision application no such claim has been made. The Government being the revisionary authority only, the scope of revision application has to be restricted to the correctness of the order in the light of factual and legal background of the case considered by the Commissio....... + More
- 2018 (4) TMI 1655
Imposition of penalty - short landing of goods - Section 129DD(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- On examination of the preamble to the orders-in-original, it is noticed that the original advice to the applicant was that an appeal against these orders lies to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, which is outrightly wrong. But this error has not been corrected even subsequently by issuing proper corrigenda by the adjudicating authority by directing the applicant to file an appeal before the CESTAT, Kolkata, in the light of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. In fact, instead of correcting the mistake, another error has been committed by issuing non-signed corrigenda by the Assistant Commissioner and by directing the applicant to file a revision application before the Governmen....... + More
........
|
